Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 101

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 8/29/2011. (APP, ) Copy mailed to Spreadbury this date.

FILED

.AUG 292011
PATRICK E. DUFFY, CLERK

By OEPUTY CLERK, MISSOULA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF HAMILTON,
LEE ENTERPRISES, INC., and
BOONE KARLBERG P.C.
Defendants.

CV 11-64-M-DWM-JCL

ORDER

--------------------------)

Plaintiff Michael E. Spreadbury, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for
SubstitutionlRecusal of Judges (dkt # 17). Spreadbury moved to disqualify United
States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch and the undersigned, United States
District Judge Donald W. Molloy, on the basis of percei ved impartiality. Judge
Lynch issued an Order denying Plaintiff's motion as it applies to him (dkt # 46).
This Order pertains to Plaintiff's motion as it applies to me. Upon considering

1

Plaintiffs motion, the Court has found it does not establish a legitimate basis for
disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Accordingly, Spreadbury's motion is
denied.
The grounds alleged for my disqualification now stem from a prior lawsuit
brought by Plaintiff, Spreadbury v. Hoffman et aI., CV 10-49-M-DWM-JCL
(Spreadbury I). That case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Lynch pursuant to
Local Rule 1.10 and Standing Order No. DWM-47 (January 8, 2007). As the
Article III Judge presiding over the case, I was responsible for reviewing and
deciding whether to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations of Judge
Lynch. I adopted his findings and recommendations by Order on November 2,
2010. (Dkt. # 9.) One of the defendants in Spreadbury I, Angela Wetzsteon, had
previously served as a student intern in Judge Lynch's chambers at the Court.
Plaintiffs claims against her arose out of her actions as a student at the University
of Montana School of Law serving a student internship with the Ravalli County
Attorney's office. At the time, I served (and continue to serve) on the Board of
Visitors for the University of Montana School of Law.
Plaintiff proposes two reasons that I should have recused myself from
presiding in Spreadbury I and should be disqualified in this case. I considered and
rejected the first reason-that Ms. Wetzsteon's prior student internship at the
Court created a conflict of interest-in an Order entered November 2, 2010 in
2

Spreadbury I (dkt # 9). Now, Plaintiff alleges a perceived financial conflict of
interest. Plaintiff asserts that my membership on the School of Law's Board of
Visitors, which he characterizes as a paid position pursuant to Montana Code
Annotated § 2-18-501, created a financial interest in violation of28 U.S.C. §
455(b)(4).
Section 455(b)(4) requires disqualification where ajudge "knows that he,
individually or as a fiduciary ... has a financial interest in the subj ect matter in
controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." A "financial interest"
includes "ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a
relationship as director, adviser or other active participant in the affairs of a party."
28 U.S.C. § 455(d)(4).
Here, Plaintiff has alleged no facts to support his contention that I have a
financial interest "in the subject matter in controversy." The facts he alleges relate
to a perceived financial interest in the subject matter at issue in Spreadbury I. The
defendants in the current case, Spreadbury vs. Bitterroot Public Library, et al., are
the Bitterroot Public Library, the City of Hamilton, Lee Enterprises, Inc., and
Boone Karlberg, P.C. and the subject matter does not concern the University of
Montana or the School of Law. Neither the subject matter nor parties in the
current litigation are related to my membership on the School of Law's Board of
3

Visitors and I see no other reason to disqualify myself from this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's motion for
recusal is DENIED.

/)./JtIV
Dated this ~day of August, 2011.

/

BY:_~~L..!....-_=--"':"---l-,L-_~_ _ __

Donald W. Mol} ,District Judge
United States Dis rict Court
/

4